[Wikipedia-l] Re: Avoid tables -- keep it simple!

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>>It is a pure pipe dream to think that tables are going
>>to go away because they are so damn useful and
>>visually appealing to the great majority of our
>>readers.
>>
>
>We could eliminate them through code, i.e. don't let people enter
>them.  This might be (and probably would be!) a terrible idea, but
>it's important to keep in mind that unlike matters of prose style,
>etc., we actually can control this one at the level of code-enforced
>policy.
>
>I'm not saying that we should enforce that there be no tables.
>But I do agree with the general critique that some of our pages are
>too "over designed" and that tables have been overused to make pages
>look pretty, at the expense of simplicity and of the ability to easily
>render the pages in other media.  (Like text-browsers, for instance)
>
In standing up to be counted, I clearly come out in favour of tables. 
 Although I find that they are sometimes difficult to work with, it is a 
clear benefit to the non-contributing reader to be able to look up 
countries or elements or whatever else is appropriate, and be able to 
know exactly where to find a country's population or the isotopes of an 
element.  Wading through a lot of text when you are looking for a very 
specific piece of information can be very frustrating.  If the 
information is missing from text it is not always evident, but a blank 
box in a table is very clear.  Although it is necessary to strive for a 
balance the benefit of the reader seems a higher mission than the 
benefit of the contributor. If the general public finds Wikipedia easy 
to mine for information, they'll keep coming back.

Nobody  is obliged to work on a table.  Many of our best contributors do 
quite well working on text alone.  If they work an an article where a 
table is appropriate it follows the principle of "Always leave something 
undone" to have someone else build in the table

Eclecticology